Pacific – West Papua No.1 News Portalhttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng
West Papua DailyMon, 19 Nov 2018 10:58:10 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/cropped-favicon-57x57-32x32.pngPacific – West Papua No.1 News Portalhttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng
3232106342098Māori and Pacific communities is important for West Papua strugglehttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/maori-pacific-communities-important-west-papua-struggle/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/maori-pacific-communities-important-west-papua-struggle/#respondWed, 19 Jul 2017 03:06:36 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=9261By James Borrowdale LIKE apartheid South Africa, I kept hearing. For a long time, the horrors behind the curtain thrown up by South Africa’s racist government weren’t widely known in this country. It wasn’t until the 1981 Springboks tour that the small band of activists, who had all the time been committed to the cause, […]

Maori women shown their support for West Papuan who struggling for their freedom – Supplied

By James Borrowdale

LIKE apartheid South Africa, I kept hearing. For a long time, the horrors behind the curtain thrown up by South Africa’s racist government weren’t widely known in this country. It wasn’t until the 1981 Springboks tour that the small band of activists, who had all the time been committed to the cause, were able to turn that affair into a nation-splitting episode—and to put increased international pressure on the regime.

West Papua hasn’t had its Springboks tour yet; it is often called the world’s forgotten occupation. Indonesia has held formal control over West Papua since 1962’s New York Agreement granted the South East Asian superpower the former Dutch colony, with the promise of a fair vote on self-determination by 1969. That never arrived: 1969’s Act of Free Choice, in which just 0.2 percent of the population voted—under extreme duress—determined that West Papua was to remain part of Indonesia, a country with which it had no linguistic, cultural, or racial links.

Ever since, the repression of the indigenous population has been ruthless. The figure of 100,000 people killed by Indonesian security forces is commonly cited, but estimates run as high as 500,000. Mass killings of Papuans in the tribal highlands in the 1970s met the criteria for genocide, the Asia Human Rights Commission reported. And the brutality continues: a 2016 report conducted by the Archdiocese of Brisbane titled We Will Lose Everything contains reports of atrocities committed throughout 2015, including extrajudicial executions, torture, and firing on peaceful protestors. Methods of torture, another reportclaims, include rape, slashing with bayonets, and electrification.

Clearly, something horrific is happening—and has been for a long time—in the South Pacific. New Zealand’s response? Successive governments, perhaps wary of aggravating an important trading partner, have refused to dispute Indonesia’s territorial borders. The media hasn’t done much better—VICE NZ was one of just a handful of outlets to cover a visit to New Zealand by Benny Wenda, the leader-in-exile of the West Papuan independence movement and a man twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, earlier this year.

He’s a man with a fascinating tale to tell—a childhood spent on the run in the bush, horrors witnessed, arrest, escape, a life-long commitment to the cause of his people. And it’s a story that is percolating at some political level, with 11 New Zealand MPs across four parties now signatories of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua declaration. Where, then, I wondered, were the profiles in the Saturday newspapers, the coverage on Sunday-night current-affairs shows?

Dr Pala Molisa, of Victoria University’s School of Accounting and Commercial Law, is a long-time supporter of West Papuan independence. Addressing why the New Zealand media is reluctant to take on the story of the subjugation of an entire people, happening so close to home, he says, means confronting an “uncomfortable thing”. “It shouldn’t be too controversial [to say] today that black and brown lives, when you look at the patterns—socioeconomic, police shootings, mass-incarceration—are devalued when compared to white lives.”

Molisa is from Vanuatu, a country that also had to fight for its independence from colonial rule. He bemoans how dependent Pākehā awareness is upon coverage in established media: “Most of our educated Pākehā population is highly reliant on mainstream media. As long as [West Papua is] kept out, that’ll affect the amount of participation.”

Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre has, as a journalist, been reporting on West Papua since the early 1980s, and finds the lack of interest “puzzling”. A veteran journalist (“I think I’ve got a reasonable handle on what is international news”), he wonders why the majority of the press has for so long largely ignored West Papua.

“It has so many elements that have resonance with New Zealand—indigenous issues, land issues, development issues. And in the past we’ve had an affinity with the people of the Pacific, going right back to the nuclear-free policies, which were very intertwined in Polynesia with indigenous self-determination.”

In the wider Pacific, at least, there is some momentum gathering. In March this year, seven nations—Vanuatu, Tonga, Tuvalu, Palau, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, and the Solomon Islands—addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, raising concerns about human rights abuses in West Papua.

“Within their suffering we see our own”

Māori, too, have been vocal about West Papua. When Wenda visited Auckland, he was welcomed onto Ōrākei Marae by Ngāti Whātua. Wayne Pihema, a Ngāti Whātua Board Trust member who helped organise the hui, says shared experiences of colonialism motivated the invitation to Wenda to speak. “We’ve got somewhere in our genetic history a memory of that kind of experience… We can relate to people in West Papua as being part of the Pacific and being indigenous Pacific people like us. Within their suffering we see our own.”

Oceania Interrupted is an Auckland-based group of Pacific and Māori women who use visual and performance art to raise awareness of the suffering of West Papuans. The group, which has included women from as many as 13 different Pacific ethnicities or nations, has staged 10 of the 15 “artistic interventions” it plans to hold—15 years being the mandatory prison sentence for raising the West Papuan Morning Star flag within the Indonesian-occupied territory.

In a similar fashion to Pihema, spokesperson Leilani Salesa calls the group’s duty to West Papua an “ideological commitment”, one borne of a sense of Pacific solidarity. “ he ocean is what binds us together, the ocean is our sea of islands… the ocean is what our ancestors conquered.”

Salesa, though, highlights the role that Pākehā activists have played in raising awareness, singling out veteran campaigner and writer Maire Leadbeater: “If it wasn’t for her, I wouldn’t know who I know and what I know.”

I put it to Leadbeater that Māori and Pacific groups within New Zealand are now taking the lead, something she said was “amazing”. “I see it in the context that the interest in West Papua has extended so much through the Pacific recently. Communities here are linking up with really strong movements in the Solomons and Fiji, and to some extent in Tonga and Samoa, and so on. It’s really important people here are getting engaged because they are in touch with their families in those countries, and it’s those countries that are actually taking action at the moment—it’s not New Zealand, unfortunately.”

While it’s great, Leadbeater says, that impetus comes from Māori and Pacific communities, it’s important there is wider—and whiter—support. “Look at the tino rangatiritanga movement in this country: it’s always had strong allies in the Pākehā community, hasn’t it? And that’s always been important to the success of campaigns.”

“The anti-apartheid activists would’ve felt like they were just spitting into a cyclone…you just need to keep having faith.”

She remains upbeat about the effect protest and public opinion have on government action, citing her previous research that, she says, proves the Government is attuned to public opinion on Indonesian activity, especially as it has related to atrocities committed in East Timor and, to a lesser extent, in West Papua. “You think the Government is not taking any notice, but they do have to take account of public opinion and the stronger it gets the more they have to take notice. [But] you can’t expect people to identify with an issue they’ve hardly ever heard of.”

Molisa, too, is optimistic. “What gives me faith, to put it in that historical perspective, is that this is in the early stages, and the anti-apartheid activists would’ve felt like they were just spitting into a cyclone. If you look at the long arch of history, that tells you that you just need to keep having faith because these sorts of things have a way of building in ways you can’t expect.”

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/maori-pacific-communities-important-west-papua-struggle/feed/09261Shirking Matilda: The Realpolitic Case for Australian Recognition of West Papuahttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/shirking-matilda-realpolitik-case-australian-recognition-west-papua/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/shirking-matilda-realpolitik-case-australian-recognition-west-papua/#respondTue, 07 Feb 2017 14:18:48 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8664By Sandy Greenberg The Indonesian occupation of West Papua has been described as a “neglected genocide”, a crime against humanity being committed on a multi-generational scale, but overlooked by international observers as a matter of course. Following the departure of Dutch colonial presence in 1962, the Indonesian government had agreed to grant the people of […]

The Indonesian occupation of West Papua has been described as a “neglected genocide”, a crime against humanity being committed on a multi-generational scale, but overlooked by international observers as a matter of course. Following the departure of Dutch colonial presence in 1962, the Indonesian government had agreed to grant the people of West Papua a free and fair plebiscite between independence and integration with Indonesia, to be overseen by the United Nations. Instead, Indonesian General Sarwo Edhi Wibowo handpicked a mere 1,025 people (a fraction of 1% of the Papuan population) and forced them to vote by a public show of hands in the presence of armed Indonesian soldiers, before announcing that the vote had been unanimously in favor of Indonesian control. Jakarta justifies its control of West Papua by asserting that Indonesia is the legitimate post-colonial successor state to the entirety of the former Dutch colonies in the region; in reality, its interests lie mostly in the immense commodities wealth, principally in gold and copper, that can be extracted from its Melanesian holding. Since the occupation began in May of 1963, international media have ignored the Indonesian military as it has denied basic political rights and freedoms to Papua’s indigenous population, prevented journalists and NGOs from operating in West Papua, killed as many as 500,000 Papuans in wildly disproportionate “responses” to Papuan resistance, actively attempted to supplant or destroy Papua’s Melanesian cultural traditions (including by forcible trafficking in Papuan children), tortured Papuan political prisoners, and facilitated far-ranging ecological devastation.

Indifference to Papuans’ lives goes well beyond the media; indeed, some of the worst culprits are national governments. For many years the United States actively chose to support Indonesian claims on West Papua to prevent a shift in the Cold War balance of power (Indonesia during the Suharto dictatorship being a valued anti-communist force in the region), while today private Anglo-American mining interests unashamedly bankroll oppression. Similarly, the threat of lost economic activity in the form of Indonesian trade has compelled states, including Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and most importantly Australia, to support the occupation with money, votes, or rhetoric. Australia has been and remains a major source of weapons, matériel, and training for the Indonesian military, even supplying the type of attack helicopters with which Papuan villages were firebombed and repeatedly engaging in joint maneuvers with the Indonesian military. Perhaps more importantly, Australia has provided sustained diplomatic cover for the genocide (including by means of treaties signed as late as 2006) and created a hostile environment for Papuan activists, from former Liberal Party Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying in 2013, “…people seeking to grandstand against Indonesia, please don’t look to do in Australia. You are not welcome” to former Labor Party Minister of Foreign Affairs Bob Carr calling engaging in pro-West Papua advocacy, “an appalling thing to do”.

The Australian position is key because of its geographic proximity to Papua, its diplomatic capital and close links with NATO and Commonwealth powers, its military and political facilitation of the occupation, and its status as a major economic driver in the region (alongside Indonesia and ASEAN). Moreover, given that the only hope of West Papua attracting international backing is effective organizing targeted at international audiences (as has been the strategy of such groups for decades), Australia’s hostility towards and disempowerment of such advocacy precludes activists from the most effective regional platform via which they might reach these audiences. Recognizing Australia’s importance, the Widodo government has recently pushed Australia to intervene more strongly in favor of Indonesian control. In recent years, Melanesian states have sought to construct a greater degree of political, cultural, and economic solidarity between themselves, and greater visibility on the world stage, by forming the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), a body consisting of the governments of Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea, along with Front de LibérationNationaleKanak et Socialiste, a pro-independence political movement in French-held New Caledonia. The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has sought to join this coalition, seeing as an effective means through which to gain visibility and supporters through cross-Melanesian solidarity. Though Fiji and Papua New Guinea, over which Indonesia has much economic influence, have opposed ULMWP’s application, the other three members, particularly Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, have supported the West Papuan cause with increasingly forceful rhetoric, and continually pressed for ULMWP representation in the group. Concerned about the increased attention that ULMWP membership might cause, Jakarta has asked Australia to dissuade South Pacific nations, notably Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands but also others, from these efforts — for obvious reasons, Australia has more diplomatic capital and goodwill with these countries than Indonesia does.

While Indonesia pressures Australia to direct its crucial influence to maintaining the occupation, Canberra could also choose to use its influence to end the slaughter. Public Australian recognition of West Papuan cause would attract much higher media attention. Australia is well-placed to call upon diplomatic partners and work towards shaping a powerful multi-national bloc for self-determination, possibly supported by the post-Cold War UN. Moreover, by giving asylum and aggressive support to Papuan activists Australia could amplify their activism and keep them safe from Indonesian reprisal (Australia has, in the past, provided a limited number of Papuan activists with asylum, but this is neither a consistent policy nor applied to anything other than trivial numbers of people). Some Australian political factions have called for such a course of action, notably the Australian Greens. However, there exists a broad consensus between the leaders of both major Australian political camps (Labor and the Liberal-National coalition) against providing any meaningful support for West Papua. That consensus is misguided. Even putting aside questions of moral obligation or the inherent value of human life, even constraining ourselves entirely to an unalloyed realpolitik, it would be in Australia’s best interest to end its complicity.

Australia is well-placed to call upon diplomatic partners and work towards shaping a powerful multi-national bloc for self-determination, possibly supported by the post-Cold War UN. Australian politicians who fear a loss of economic activity from alienating Indonesia are correct in noting the deep economic links between Australia and Indonesia. Each country represents about 3 percent of the other’s export market, with bilateral trade growing in recent years at an average annual rate just over 7 percent. In 2012, the two nations signed the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), and each applies most favored nation status (or its equivalent) to the other’s imports. However, estimations of the actual fallout from alienating Indonesia tend to be greatly overstated.

For one thing, a significant percentage of Australia’s exports to Indonesia are beef and cattle. Because of proximity, Australia can supply beef to Indonesia dramatically less expensively than any other major beef-producer in the world, particularly given that Indonesian law recognizes the health and safety protections on Australian beef to be superior to those of other nearby countries that could conceivably supply beef. Because Indonesians’ beef demand is relatively inelastic, and because any other country that could supply beef in sufficient quantities would necessarily price beef exports to Indonesia far above the Australian price-point, Indonesia would have active economic incentives to continue trade with Australia, at least in the area of livestock.

Second, Indonesia is by far the largest recipient of Australian foreign aid, totaling USD 2 billion between 2005 and 2010 and USD 646.8 million in 2013-2014 alone. This gives Australia certain bargaining power over Indonesia — more than, of course, the likes of Vanuatu. Though Indonesia would almost certainly impose sanctions upon Australia in the wake of an Australian position-reversal, this consideration alone would disincentivize Indonesia from seeking to cut all trade relations with Australia. Incidentally, if Australian revenue did end up dropping significantly, cuts to this aid would present to some extent a compensatory windfall.

Finally, Australia and Indonesia are both part of the Australia-New Zealand-ASEAN Free Trade Area, which predates CEPA. Though Indonesia would certainly withdraw from CEPA should Australia support West Papuan sovereignty in any way, it’s unclear that Indonesia, and ASEAN member, would be able to force the other ASEAN nations to kick Australia out of this agreement; ASEAN operates on a consensus-voting system, so even one member state’s opposition to forfeiting significant Australian trade (and many member states do engage in significant Australian trade) would keep ASEAN, and therefore Indonesia, in the agreement. Theoretically, Indonesia could withdraw from ASEAN itself, but the intra-ASEAN free trade and political power it would lose in doing so make this unlikely. Thus, though the potential economic fallout for Australia is real, the degree of the fallout is constrained by structural and legal factors.

Further, any economic fallout would be outweighed in the long run by the geopolitical benefits Australia stands to gain by supporting West Papua. In particular, Australia needs favorable relations with small island states in the South Pacific. Currently, Australia’s policy on asylum seekers relies on “processing” facilities established in South Pacific states like Nauru. Though this policy is considered barbaric by respected international NGOs like Amnesty International, even after Australian immigration policy changes Australia will, for the foreseeable future, rely on cooperation from these island states on issues like people-smuggling. It therefore has an incentive to maintain friendly relations with Pacific island nations. In recent years, many of these very nations have become increasingly vocal supporters of West Papua; not only Vanuatu and the Solomon islands, but also Tuvalu, Tonga, the Marshall Islands, and Nauru have recently voiced their support at the UN. This being the case, support for West Papua would be one way for Australia to gain these nations’ goodwill.

When polled, Australians support self-determination for West Papua. It’s time for their government to do the same. Australia’s continued complicity in the West Papuan occupation is not only immoral. From a purely practical perspective, it’s irrational as well. (*)

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/shirking-matilda-realpolitik-case-australian-recognition-west-papua/feed/08664The advancement of the West Papuan independence movement inexorablehttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/advancement-west-papuan-independence-movement-inexorable/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/advancement-west-papuan-independence-movement-inexorable/#respondSun, 05 Feb 2017 10:53:17 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8657By Dan McGarry LAST month, New Zealand-based analyst Jose Sousa-Santos commented on Twitter that “Indonesia’s attempt at buying support from the Pacific region seems to have little to no impact on Melanesia’s stance on [West] Papua.” That’s one of those pesky observations that’s neither entirely right nor entirely wrong. The truth is: Indonesia is winning […]

LAST month, New Zealand-based analyst Jose Sousa-Santos commented on Twitter that “Indonesia’s attempt at buying support from the Pacific region seems to have little to no impact on Melanesia’s stance on [West] Papua.”

That’s one of those pesky observations that’s neither entirely right nor entirely wrong. The truth is: Indonesia is winning almost every battle… and still losing the fight.

Conventional wisdom used to be that Indonesia had built an impregnable firewall against Melanesian action in support of West Papuan independence.

Its commercial and strategic relationship with Papua New Guinea is such that PNG’s foreign affairs establishment will frankly admit that their support for Indonesia’s territorial claims is axiomatic. Call it realpolitik or call it timidity, but they feel that the West Papuan independence doesn’t even bear contemplating.

Widespread grassroots support and its popularity among progressive up-and-comers such as Gary Juffa don’t seem to matter. As long as Jakarta holds the key to economic and military tranquillity, Port Moresby’s elites are content to toe the Indonesian line.

The situation in Suva is similar. FijiFirst is naturally inclined is toward a more authoritarian approach to governance. And it seems that the military’s dominance of Fiji’s political landscape dovetails nicely with Indonesia’s power dynamic.

Many argue that Fiji’s relationship is largely mercenary. It wouldn’t flourish, they say, if the path to entente weren’t strewn with cash and development assistance. That’s probably true, but we can’t ignore the sincere cordiality between Fiji’s leadership and their Indonesian counterparts.

Same seeds

The same seeds have been planted in Port Vila, but they haven’t take root.

Until recently, Indonesia’s ability to derail consensus in the Melanesian Spearhead Group has ensured that West Papuan independence leaders lacked even a toehold on the international stage. In the absence of international recognition and legitimacy, the Indonesian government was able to impose draconian restrictions on activists both domestically and internationally.

Perhaps the most notorious example was their alleged campaign to silence independence leader Benny Wenda, who fled Indonesia after facing what he claims were politically motivated charges designed to silence him. He was granted political asylum in the United Kingdom, but a subsequent red notice—usually reserved for terrorists and international criminals—made travel impossible.

In mid-2012, following an appeal by human rights organisation Fair Trials, Interpol admitted that Indonesia’s red notice against Wenda was “predominantly political in nature”, and removed it.

Since then, however, activists have accused Indonesia of abusing anti-terrorism mechanisms to curtail Wenda’s travels. A trip to the United States was cancelled at the last moment because American authorities refused to let him board his flight. It was alleged that an Indonesian complaint was the source of this refusal.

Independence supporters claim that Indonesian truculence has also led to Mr Wenda being barred from addressing the New Zealand parliament. His appearance at the Sydney opera house with human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson received a standing ovation from the 2500 audience members… and an irate protest from Indonesian officials.

Not all of Indonesia’s efforts are overt. Numerous commentators made note of the fact that Vanuatu’s then-foreign minister Sato Kilman visited Jakarta immediately before his 2015 ouster of Prime Minister Joe Natuman.

Lifelong supporter

Natuman, a lifelong supporter of West Papuan independence, was a stalwart backer of membership in the MSG for the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, or ULMWP. He was unseated barely weeks before the Honiara meeting that was to consider the question.

Kilman, along with Indonesian officials, vehemently deny any behind-the-scenes collusion on West Papua.

But even with Vanuatu wavering, something happened at the June 2015 Honiara meeting that surprised everyone. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare stage-managed a diplomatic coup, a master class in Melanesian mediation.

In June 2015, I wrote that the “Solomonic decision by the Melanesian Spearhead Group to cut the baby in half and boost the membership status of both the ULMWP and Indonesia is an example of the Melanesian political mind at work. Valuing collective peace over individual justice, group prosperity over individual advancement, and allowing unabashed self-interest to leaven the sincerity of the entire process, our leaders have placed their stamp on what just might be an indelible historical moment.”

Since then, the sub-regional dynamic has undergone a transformation. Kilman’s administration suffered a collapse of unprecedented proportions following corruption charges against more than half of his government.

The resulting public furore seems—for the moment at least— to have catalysed a backlash against venality and personal interest.

If the rumours are true, and Indonesia did have a hand in Kilman’s palace coup, the tactic hasn’t worked since. A pair of no confidence motions—not very coincidentally on the eve of yet another MSG leaders’ summit—failed even to reach the debate stage.

Kanaky support never wavered

Kanaky’s support for West Papuan independence has never wavered, but given their semi-governmental status, and their staunch socialist platform, Jakarta would be hard pressed to find a lever it could usefully pull.

For his part, Sogavare has survived more than one attempt to topple him. His own party leaders explicitly referenced his leadership on the West Papuan question when they tried to oust him by withdrawing their support.

In a masterful—and probably unlawful—manoeuvre, Sogavare retained his hold on power by getting the other coalition members to endorse him as their leader. His deft handling of the onslaught has raised him in the estimation of many observers of Melanesian politics.

Some claim that his dodging and weaving has placed him in the first rank of Melanesia’s political pantheon.

In Vanuatu as well, once bitten is twice shy. Prime Minister Charlot Salwai raised eyebrows when he not only met with the ULMWP leadership, but accepted the salute of a contingent of freedom fighters in full military regalia.

The meeting took place at the same moment as MSG foreign ministers met to consider rule changes that, if enacted, will almost inevitably result in full membership for the ULMWP.

The MSG has traditionally operated on consensus. If these rule changes pass muster, this will no longer be the case. It is a near certainty that Indonesia will do its utmost to avert this.

Sogavare’s inspired approach

Sogavare has demonstrated an inspired approach to the situation: If the MSG won’t stand for decolonisation in the Pacific, he asks, what is it good for? This rhetoric has become a chorus, with senior politicians in Vanuatu and Kanaky joining in.

Sogavare is, in short, embarked on his own march to Selma. And he is willing to allow the MSG to suffer the slings and arrows of Indonesian opprobrium. He is, in short, willing to allow the MSG to die for their sins.

Whether we agree or not with the independence campaign, there is no denying the genius of Sogavare’s ploy. His willingness to sacrifice the MSG for the cause takes away the one lever that Indonesia had in Melanesia.

His key role in orchestrating an end run around the Pacific Islands Forum’s wilful silence is another trademark move. When human rights concerns were simply glossed over in the communiqué, he and others orchestrated a chorus of calls for attention to the issue in the UN General Assembly.

Manasseh Sogavare and his Pacific allies have found a strategy that is making the advancement of the West Papuan independence movement inexorable. As Ghandi demonstrated in India, as with Dr King’s campaign for civil rights showed again and again, anything less than defeat is a victory.

Without losing a single major battle, Indonesia is—slowly, so slowly—being forced from the board. (*)

INDONESIA’s stance on Papua at the UN General Assembly in New York last month recalled its firm denials of human rights abuses in East Timor in the late 1990s. Pacific countries, including the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, had expressed concern over human rights conditions in Indonesia’s easternmost provinces, Papua and West Papua. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, for example, said: “Human rights violations in West Papua and the pursuit for self-determination of West Papua are two sides of the same coin.” This attention to Indonesia’s human rights record in Papua prompted nationalistic responses back home, with local media making a star of diplomat Nara Masista Rakhmatia for standing up to the audacious Pacific upstarts (link is external) and accusing them of interfering in Indonesia’s domestic affairs.

What happened at the UN General Assembly was more than just a symptom of ongoing disagreements between the Indonesian government and Pacific countries over human rights abuses and the “internationalisation” of the Papua issue. It was also an example of Indonesia’s poorly handled diplomacy toward the small Pacific states. Defensive Indonesian statements about sovereignty and territorial integrity do nothing to address the humanitarian issues that are, in fact, the primary concerns of state and non-state actors in the Pacific.

On the international stage, the Indonesian government pretends these recent developments have not occurred. Its claims of improvements in human rights and democracy completely ignore the situation on the ground. In addition to reports from international organisations like Human Rights Watch, even the Coordinating Ministry of Politics, Law, and Security Affairs has acknowledged human rights violations in at least three cases (link is external): the Wasior incident of 2001, the Wamena incident of 2003, and the Paniai shooting of 2014. Although endeavours to resolve these cases have stalled, the government is at least prepared to admit to a domestic audience that human rights problems exist.

The inconsistency in how Papuan issues are represented is the result of the lack of a coordinated policy between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other related agencies about how to defuse the Papua issue. There has been no attempt to coordinate the approach on the ground with the policies and information presented to the international community. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs appears, however, to be on a public relations offensive, with its representatives in Australia regularly posting insipid infographics (link is external) about development in Papua, with facts like “30,000 Papuan football supporters flew the Indonesian flag”.

Similarly, the Indonesian representative at the UN claimed that the allegations of human rights abuses against Indonesia were untrue, and that Pacific countries supported the separatist cause without acknowledging infrastructure development (link is external) in Papua. These blunt arguments lack any substance about the historical, political, economic and security conditions in Papua and subsequently do little to counter allegations of human rights abuses.

Formulation of foreign policy should be based on domestic and international considerations. But Indonesia’s foreign policy is based purely on domestic concerns about sovereignty – a sentiment captured by the military slogan “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) is non-negotiable” (NKRI harga mati), variants of which have been repeated by the government on the international stage (link is external). The government pretends that the movement for self-determination does not exist, and seems convinced that it can rely on a supportive international community. But the international community is well aware of the rights abuses in Papua and Indonesian foreign policy needs to be adjusted to reflect this fact.

The Papua issue also demonstrates how Indonesian diplomacy towards Pacific countries has failed. The small Pacific states are constrained by an international system that favours major powers. To overcome their small size and influence, Pacific countries need to band together and raise their concerns in multilateral forums for their voices to be heard. Human rights issues in Papua have been high on the agenda at recent regional forums, such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) and the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), which wrapped up its 2016 meeting last month. Indonesia is an associate member in the MSG and a dialogue partner in PIF. At an earlier MSG meeting, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu proposed sending a fact-finding mission (link is external) to investigate rights abuses in Papua. This call was repeated at the PIF meeting last year.

Increasing attention to Papua in these forums has been driven in part by the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP). Despite being a nongovernmental organisation, ULMWP has observer status in the MSG, and is considered by many to represent the voice of Papuans. The MSG delayed a decision on granting ULMWP full membership earlier this year, although there are strong signs that it will be offered (link is external) at the next meeting in December 2016.

The Indonesian diplomatic response to the internationalisation of the Papua issue has been largely reactive – and has included ad-hoc development assistance to Pacific countries, such as Fiji and Papua New Guinea. The government sponsored a grouping of the five “Melanesian” provinces in Indonesia – Papua, West Papua, Maluku, North Maluku and East Nusa Tenggara – dubbing it “Melindo” and provided support for the Melanesian Arts and Culture Festival to be held in Kupang in 2015.

These were transparent attempts to convince Pacific counties about Indonesia’s commitment to Melanesian heritage across the country, even though the majority of people in East Nusa Tenggara, Maluku, and North Maluku do not share as strong a sense of belonging to Melanesia as do indigenous Papuans. In any case, these efforts have proved ineffective in persuading fellow Pacific societies to defuse the Papua issue in the international arena.

Moreover, many Indonesian diplomats lack the skills to contain the Papuan independence campaign in the Pacific. Diplomats must have the capacity to establish networks at multiple levels, not only with fellow diplomatic officers, but also NGO activists, political leaders, community members at the grassroots – even Papuan self-determination activists – if there are to be supportive discussions on the Papua issue.

Indonesia’s rejection of the Pacific countries’ fact-finding team proposal – without offering to provide comprehensive human rights reports of its own – has raised questions about Indonesia’s role in and commitment to tackling problems in Papua. There is no point in simply telling other countries to stay out of the Papua issue (link is external). After all, the Indonesian government cannot conceal the truth about human rights violations in Papua. That would only provide ammunition for Pacific countries to continue to raise the Papua issue in international forums.

The Indonesian government needs to stop accusing Pacific countries of undermining its sovereignty and start working on finding common ground to resolve the Papua issue.

The author is is a researcher at the Marthinus Academy in Jakarta

This article was published in http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au

Infographic of the violation of Freedom of Expression in West Papua – ICP

Jayapura, Jubi – The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned about six Pacific countries raising the subject of human rights violations in Papua in the General Debate of the Assembly’s 71st Session, on 26 September 2016.

“The six Pacific countries are Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, and Tonga. The six Pacific countries called for the Indonesian government to address human rights violations in Papua; they have also called for West Papuan self-determination rights to be respected,” AHRC wrote in the statement received by Jubi on Monday (3/4/2016).

The AHRC said they deeply appreciates the point raised by the six Pacific countries, because human rights violations in Papua have occurred for decades and there is no serious effort by the Indonesian government to address the violations. The AHRC notes that ever since Papua integrated into Indonesian territory, many cases of human rights violations have occurred. The AHRC has reported and documented cases of human rights violations, for instance the Wasior and Wamena case, the Theys Hiyo Eluay murder case, enforced disappearance of Mr. Aristoteles Masoka, 1977 Puncak jaya case (allegation of Genocide), the Paniai case of 2014, and the Tolikara case.

The AHRC notes that the government has addressed none of the human rights violations in Papua. Furthermore, the judicial system does not function; the police have become party to the perpetrators that have committed violations; and there is no investigation into the involved Indonesian troops. We do not know the names of the units and the numbers of personnel involved. Such questions remain unanswered because the government has not earnestly sought to resolve the cases of these violations,

“Of course, the AHRC is aware that there are some initiatives undertaken by the government to deal with Papua, for instance the Accelerated Development Unit for Papua and West Papua (UP4B). This unit was established under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyo’s administration (SBY). There is also the establishment of the human rights team under the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) to address human right cases in Papua, the government policy of releasing political prisoners in Papua (under President Joko Widodo’s administration), and what took place when President Widodo started his presidential campaign from Papua,” said AHRC.

However, all efforts undertaken by the government have yielded no result for Papua. On the contrary, human rights violations are still ongoing; military personnel who killed Mr. They Hiyo Eluay have been promoted to the head of Intelligence Strategic Body (BAIS), and, in general, no justice and remedy for victims is to be found.

“Therefore, considering the above situation, the AHRC calls upon the government of Indonesia to seriously accept all points raised and recommendations made by the six Pacific countries; the government must open access for an independent body to monitor human rights protection in Papua,” AHRC concluded the statement.

Furthermore, the government of Indonesia must make earnest and immediate efforts to start peaceful dialogue with the Papuans and a credible and independent third party that is supported by the UN should facilitate the dialogue. (Victor Mambor)

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/government-indonesia-must-earnestly-address-human-rights-violation-papua-ahrc/feed/08589ICMI Condemns Pacific Countries over Meddling on West Papua Issuehttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/icmi-condemns-pacific-countries-meddling-west-papua-issue/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/icmi-condemns-pacific-countries-meddling-west-papua-issue/#respondSat, 01 Oct 2016 02:03:10 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8574Jakarta, Jubi – The Association of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) condemned the statement by Pacific countries’ leaders for what it called their meddling in Indonesia’s affairs over West Papua. ICMI Deputy Chairman Priyo Budi Santoso in a press release received in Jakarta on Thursday (29/9/2016) accused those Pacific leaders of intervening concerning West Papua. […]

Jakarta, Jubi – The Association of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) condemned the statement by Pacific countries’ leaders for what it called their meddling in Indonesia’s affairs over West Papua.

ICMI Deputy Chairman Priyo Budi Santoso in a press release received in Jakarta on Thursday (29/9/2016) accused those Pacific leaders of intervening concerning West Papua.

“Pacific countries should not intervene the internal affairs of Indonesia with provocative statements that the West Papua should be given their rights for self-determination,” said Priyo.

The Prime Minister of Solomon Islands Manasye Sogavere said there have been the human rights violations in West Papua, therefore the people should be given the rights for self-determination through a referendum to decide whether they would stay with the Republic of Indonesia or build their own state.

Priyo asserted that West Papua Province could not be separated from Indonesia. So, if there are problems, the one who should be responsible to resolve it is the Indonesian Government, not other countries.

“So, if there are problems in West Papua, the Indonesian Government has responsibility to resolve it”. According to him, the open statement by the Pacific countries has been disturbed and intervened the internal affairs of Indonesia in the UN forum.

“As the neighbor countries, they shouldn’t do it, because the problems occurred in West Papua is the internal affairs of Indonesia as the sovereign country and the member of the United Nations,” said Priyo.

He urged the Indonesian Government to explicitly condemn the provocative act by Pacific countries against West Papua. In their statement, ICMI is clearly support the Unitary State of the Republic Indonesia or death! and West Papua is part of the Republic Indonesia, therefore it should be kept under the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia. (*/rom)

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/icmi-condemns-pacific-countries-meddling-west-papua-issue/feed/08574A Reframed Pacific Regionalism – Rise of the Foreign Ministershttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/reframed-pacific-regionalism-rise-foreign-ministers/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/reframed-pacific-regionalism-rise-foreign-ministers/#respondTue, 13 Sep 2016 04:37:51 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8463By : Matthew Dornan Jayapura, Jubi – In a post last September, we examined the first year of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism in the aftermath of the Port Moresby Pacific Island Forum leaders’ meeting. This year the action was in the Federated States of Micronesia, where for the first time, non-independent territories (New Caledonia and […]

Jayapura, Jubi – In a post last September, we examined the first year of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism in the aftermath of the Port Moresby Pacific Island Forum leaders’ meeting. This year the action was in the Federated States of Micronesia, where for the first time, non-independent territories (New Caledonia and French Polynesia) were granted full Forum membership status.

Another first which went largely unnoticed was the inaugural standing meeting of the Forum Foreign Ministers in August (the meeting last year was a one-off affair; as of this year it becomes an annual occurrence). The foreign ministers’ meeting now serves as an additional filter on proposals submitted as part of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism. Whereas previously proposals were assessed by the Specialist Subcommittee on Regionalism (SSCR) tasked with reviewing regional public policy submissions and vetted by the Forum Officials Committee, they are now also considered (and vetted) by foreign ministers.

The prior meeting of foreign ministers appears to have influenced what was discussed (and not discussed) in the Forum leaders’ meeting. It may also have bolstered the influence of Australia and New Zealand given their foreign ministers’ interest in regional affairs.

Australia and New Zealand were vocal supporters of admitting New Caledonia and French Polynesia into the Forum, a move agreed by leaders despite the subject not having been raised through the SSCR process, opposition from pro-independence groups within those territories, and reports of unease among some Forum member states. Of course, the inclusion of the French territories also sits at odds with the original impetus for establishing the South Pacific Forum (as it was then known) in 1971. France at the time had prevented discussion of decolonisation and French nuclear testing in meetings of the South Pacific Commission. The Forum Communiqué announced this important development in one factual line — “Leaders accepted French Polynesia and New Caledonia as full Members of the Pacific Islands Forum” – in a possible indication of disagreement among some Forum members.

The decision to include the territories, although considered inevitable by some, in the immediate term looks a lot like a response to Bainimarama’s continued criticism of Australian and New Zealand membership of the Forum. The move provides an entry for another OECD country (beyond Australia and New Zealand) to influence Forum activities. It may not have been complete coincidence that events in Fiji overshadowed those of Forum over the weekend, with the removal of Fiji’s Foreign Minister from his position by Bainimarama mid-meeting (via email) followed by the concerning arrest of opposition and trade union leaders. Bainimarama will now take up the position of Foreign Minister himself.

Australian and New Zealand influence was also evident in other areas. The leaders’ communiqué’s positive spin on PACER Plus was especially striking. It made no reference to Vanuatu’s concerns about the agreement, nor to Fiji’s decision four days ago not to join the agreement (the communiqué did describe Fiji as having reservations regarding the text). However, it did confirm previous comments by PNG’s Minister for Trade that PNG would not sign up – a stance confirmed by O’Neill at the Forum.

The relegation of West Papua as an issue was also notable. We might have expected to see West Papua given more prominence in the communiqué, given the fact that of the 48 regional policy public submissions that were received, 13 concerned West Papua. Instead, last year’s measured statement announcing the establishment of an independent fact-finding mission looks positively assertive when compared to this year’s communiqué, which simply states that leaders “recognised the political sensitivities of the issue of West Papua (Papua) and agreed the issue of alleged human rights violations in West Papua (Papua) should remain on their agenda” (while also agreeing “on the importance of an open and constructive dialogue with Indonesia”). The influence of the larger Forum members was likely at play here, including that of Australia, New Zealand, PNG and Fiji.

What of other issues discussed by leaders?

A positive development was the increased assertiveness of the Small Island States (SIS) group, which now also includes FSM. The leaders of the Small Island States (SIS) met earlier in the year in Palau and agreed upon a five-point Regional Strategy [pdf]– a significant component of which involves preparation of joint applications for funding from the Global Climate Fund (GCF). Not only will this be the first such joint application that the GCF will have received, but it has the potential to inform future activities by the Forum.

Fisheries management was again on the agenda, having been discussed at last year’s leaders’ meeting. Leaders endorsed the work of the Fisheries Taskforce in implementing the Fisheries Roadmap agreed in 2015. Importantly, leaders supported the view of the taskforce that there need be no change to the Vessel Day Scheme. This had previously been the source of some concern within the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Secretariat. The call by leaders for an expanded focus on coastal fisheries is a positive development.

As occurred last year, the communiqué discussed the importance of climate change for Forum island members. Although bold, there was not a great deal that was new here. An exception was leaders’ agreement on a Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific[pdf], which aims to integrate the region’s climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction frameworks into one. This followed bungled efforts last year to do the same, which saw leaders reject a draft given opposition by some member states to the detail of that text. The voluntary nature of the framework agreed this year was no doubt helpful in securing leaders’ agreement. The framework has nevertheless been criticised for not doing enough to integrate adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

Widely reported in Australia was the PM’s announcement of $80m over three years for disaster response, which adds to the $300m over 4 years already announced for climate adaptation in the region. Although that figure sounds impressive, $75m per year ($300m over 4 years) is below that provided in 2013, 2012 or 2011 (in that last year, Australia provided just under $170m). It does nevertheless mark an improvement on the dismal $40m provided in 2014 (as discussed previously on this blog).

The communiqué’s reference to cervical cancer and ICT – two initiatives canvassed by leaders last year as part of the SSCR process – is especially notable. We criticised the proposals at the time for being vague; it was unclear what their regional dimension was. Read between the lines of this year’s communiqué and it would appear that leaders agree – they pointed out that, “while important, these issues do not require their continued discussion to be progressed”.

How does the 2016 Forum leaders’ meeting measure up? There was less potential for controversy than in 2015, when tensions over climate change between Australia (in particular) and New Zealand and Forum island members were prominent. Fewer leaders attended this year’s meeting (five Forum island leaders instead sent delegates). Leaders did discuss issues of importance for the Pacific, but the outcomes of those discussion were limited, with much of the communiqué repeating previous statements (with some notable exceptions, including on fisheries management).

In many ways this year’s outcome reflects the Framework for Pacific Regionalism’s success in attracting high level political engagement. Having very clearly set a political agenda for last year’s leaders’ meeting, the interjection of the foreign ministers this year would appear to have had a diluting effect in some areas, with the influence of Julie Bishop and Murray McCully evident on issues such as West Papua. Australian and New Zealand influence appears to have driven other decisions as well, including the status of the French territories. Whether such political engagement has the unintended effect of undermining future engagement with civil society through the SSCR process remains to be seen.

Author is Deputy Director of the Development Policy Centre. Tess Newton Cain (@CainTess) is a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre.

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/reframed-pacific-regionalism-rise-foreign-ministers/feed/08463Pacific Leader Must Show Courage in Decision Making : CSO Repshttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/pacific-leader-must-show-courage-decision-making-cso-reps/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/pacific-leader-must-show-courage-decision-making-cso-reps/#respondSat, 10 Sep 2016 03:49:37 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8448Pohnpei, Jubi -Pacific leaders must not be afraid to show courage in decision making in order to address pressing regional issues such as impacts associated with climate change and West Papua at the international stage. These sentiments were shared by pacific civil society representatives that attended the Forum Secretariat-organised Troika breakfast this morning at the […]

Pohnpei, Jubi -Pacific leaders must not be afraid to show courage in decision making in order to address pressing regional issues such as impacts associated with climate change and West Papua at the international stage.

These sentiments were shared by pacific civil society representatives that attended the Forum Secretariat-organised Troika breakfast this morning at the Cliff Hotel in Kolonia, Pohnpei.

In a two hour long breakfast dialogue with the Troika leaders (President of FSM, Samoan Prime Minister and PNG Foreign Affairs Minister), President of the Marshall Islands and the Palau State Minister, civil society representatives from the three sub regions talked on sports and youth unemployment, aging, violence against women and children, teenage pregnancy, fisheries, disability rights, humanitarian coordination and climate change mobility.

Pacific islands Association of NGOs executive director, Emele Duituturaga who was one of six speakers selected from the 16 CSO reps at the breakfast highlighted the need for Pacific leaders to remember the plight of West Papua.

“We are pleading with you Pacific leaders to remember the lives that have been lost in West Papua since the early 60s. Research estimates tag the number of Papuan lives lost to close to half a million. You can no longer turn a blind eye to their suffering,” she said to Jubi on Friday (9/9/2015).

“We are asking you to sponsor West Papua onto the UN decolonisation list and speak to the UN Secretary General for a special envoy to undertake a human rights assessment to West Papua,” she told the leaders.

“You have already demonstrated in your meeting last year that you can be courageous by deciding to send a Forum fact finding mission into West Papua but that has been rejected by Indonesia. Please continue to engage with them so that human rights abuses and atrocities on Papuans can be halted,” she added.

Samoa Umbrella for NGOs Manager, Rosa Maulolo who spoke on fisheries and ocean resources urged the leaders to look at effective ways of managing the ocean’s resources for future generations.

“We can’t control the effects of climate change on the ocean but we can and we should effectively manage our resources for future generations. The first step is to visibly recognise the issues of our ocean including the potential impacts of deep sea mining,” Maulolo said.

The other CSO speakers included Chuuk Youth Council president, Mr. Mori Mori, Fiji Association of the Deaf, Mr Michael Bete Din, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) in the Pacific disaster law and advocacy programme head, Ms. Finau Limuloa and former Samoa rugby rep and Training and Development Coordinator of the Samoa Association of Sports National Olympic Committee, Tuala Matthew Vaea. (*)

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/pacific-leader-must-show-courage-decision-making-cso-reps/feed/08448West Papua Leader Optimistic about Forum Leaders Actionhttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/west-papua-leader-optimistic-forum-leaders-action/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/west-papua-leader-optimistic-forum-leaders-action/#respondTue, 06 Sep 2016 03:18:46 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8414By Giff Johnson Majuro, Jubi — A West Papua leader is the most optimistic he has been in years about gaining support from this week’s Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Support for West Papua human rights and self-determination has been building throughout the island region over the past year, […]

General Secretary of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, Octovianus Mote – RNZI

By Giff Johnson

Majuro, Jubi — A West Papua leader is the most optimistic he has been in years about gaining support from this week’s Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.

Support for West Papua human rights and self-determination has been building throughout the island region over the past year, said Octovianus Mote, the secretary general of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, who lives in exile in the United States.

“Last year, the Melanesian Spearhead Group and Tonga were the only ones supporting us,” said Mote, who was in Majuro to meet President Hilda Heine and government leaders in advance of the Forum summit that opens Wednesday in Pohnpei.

“This year, we have support from Micronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian countries.”

Key to his optimism is the strong advocacy of Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, who last year appointed the first government envoy for West Papua and provided government funding for his work.
In his meeting with President Heine, Mote said she “made it clear, the Marshall Islands will support us. For the Marshall Islands, human rights is the main issue.”

In the region, there are some Melanesian countries that do not have a clear policy on West Papua’s struggle for independence from Indonesia.

“But on human rights violations by Indonesia, there is no debate on it,” Mote said.

“Human rights violations and the struggle for independence are not different issues. Indonesia is violating West Papua’s basic right to self-determination.”

Mote believes their case for self-determination will finally get back to the United Nations Decolonization Committee for review. West Papua independence leaders have asked the Forum to support a call to the U.N. to review the case of West Papua.

The fact that Indonesia turned down the Sogavare government’s request for its West Papua diplomat to visit Jakarta speaks volumes about Indonesia’s attitude toward West Papua, Mote said.

“The aim is to open dialogue, but Jakarta says ‘no,’” he said, adding that island nations have been under intense pressure from Jakarta to ignore the West Papua issue.

“Indonesia’s arrogance is unbelievable,” he said.

The blunt truth, said Mote, is that West Papua is facing a policy of genocide by Indonesia, and if West Papua does not get help from the United Nations by 2020, it will be too late.

“Indonesia is using sovereignty as a means to slaughter people,” Mote said.

“Australia says this is an ‘internal issue.’ No, it is not. Sovereignty is not a reason to slaughter your own people.”

Human rights atrocities and genocide policies have been well documented by several human rights reports in recent years.

“Even the Indonesian Human Rights Commission admitted crimes against humanity (were committed by Indonesia in West Papua),” he said.

The military has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians by wiping out entire villages in remote areas with targeted military operations, he said. The Jakarta government encourages Indonesians to relocate to West Papua, and the military is paving highways and cutting down forests to make way for new settlements through West Papua.

“West Papua is so rich in natural resources,” Mote said.

“We see all these people coming in every day to fill up our country. When we try to defend our way of life and our land, we are accused of disrupting the government’s development programs.”

Despite more than a dozen nations raising concerns about human rights abuses by Indonesia during its Universal Periodic Review before the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2012, “Indonesia just ignores it,” he said.

He said access to social media and the Internet has been a turning point for West Papua.

“We praise the lord that today we have social media so we can get the word out internationally any time,” Mote said.

“It is really empowering the movement to free West Papua.”

But, he said, if there isn’t action in the next four years, it will be too late.

“2020 is the end,” he said.

“By then West Papuans will be less than 25 percent of the population, and we won’t be able to elect political leaders.”

Mote is hopeful that the Forum summit this week in Pohnpei will support taking the West Papua situation to the United Nations for review.

]]>https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/west-papua-leader-optimistic-forum-leaders-action/feed/08414Pacific Coalition on West Papua Gains Momentumhttps://tabloidjubi.com/eng/pacific-coalition-west-papua-gains-momentum/
https://tabloidjubi.com/eng/pacific-coalition-west-papua-gains-momentum/#respondMon, 05 Sep 2016 03:10:44 +0000http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/?p=8411Jayapura, Jubi – The Pacific Coalition on West Papua (PCWP) is gaining momentum with the addition of two new members and the confirmation of the membership of two other parties who indicated their profound support for the initiative since its introduction in Honiara, Solomon Islands in July this year. The PCWP was initiated by Solomon […]

Two of ULMWP leader hand over a West Papua traditional bag for Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Manasye Sogavare in Honiara – Jubi/Victor Mambor

Jayapura, Jubi – The Pacific Coalition on West Papua (PCWP) is gaining momentum with the addition of two new members and the confirmation of the membership of two other parties who indicated their profound support for the initiative since its introduction in Honiara, Solomon Islands in July this year.

The PCWP was initiated by Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare who is also the Chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group with the aim of securing the support of the wider Pacific region for preposition of taking up the issue of West Papua with the United Nations for intervention. The initial membership comprises Solomon Islands Government, Vanuatu Government, Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS) and the United Liberation Movement of West Papua and the Pacific Islands Alliance of Non-Governmental Organisations (PIANGO).

The two new members are the governments of Tuvalu and the Republic of Nauru who were represented by Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga and Nauru’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Marlene Moses.

The other two parties who indicated support for the initiative when it was introduced in Honiara at the margin of the 4th Pacific Islands Development Summit are the Kingdom of Tonga and the Republic of Marshall Islands.

The expressed support of the governments of these two countries was confirmed with the attendance of Prime Minister Akilisi Pohiva and the Republic of Marshall Islands Minister for Public Works, David Paul.

All the initial PCWP members were represented at the meeting in Honolulu Friday except for the Republic of Vanuatu Government. The Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Dame Meg Taylor was also present at the meeting.

In his opening remarks, Prime Minister Sogavare said the nations of the Pacific have a duty as closest neigbours to West Papua to address the issues of concern to West Papuan.

He said the right to self-determination being denied to the people of West Papua since the last 50 years is a fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter, just like the rights to life and dignity that they are also denied as a result of their self-determination pursuit.

He added that the intention of the PCWP is perfectly in line with the principles of human rights and democracy, the very basis of the UN Charter, which all UN Member states should adhere to and protect.

Prime Minister Sogavare said it would not be an easy task to unwind the wrongs that have been perpetrated by the complications and cover-up on the issue of West Papua over the years and this is where the need for collaborative and strategic approaches to this issue comes in.

“Only by working together and strategically dealing with the issue of West Papua can we accomplish the objective of our mission,” he said.

PIF Secretary-General Dame Taylor in her contribution to the discussions presented the forum’s position on the issue. She said the 46th PIF Summit in Port Moresby in 2015 resolved to send a fact-finding mission to West Papua, however the Indonesian Government sees the term ‘fact-finding’ as offensive and therefore that resolution impending implementation.

Dame Taylor said she has meet with the PIF’s Chair, Prime Minister O’Neill of Papua New Guinea and also the Indonesian President on the way forward on the resolution and the PIF’s Chair will meet with the President.

The Secretary-General of the ULMWP, Octovanius Mote said the ULMWP represents the freedom movement of West Papua, which continues to pursue the rights of West Papuans to their land, self-determination and all other human rights enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Prime Minister Sopoaga of Tuvalu said his country fully appreciates and sympathises with the aspirations and wishes of the people of West Papua to be on their own and fully realises their rights to exist as a country and determine their own continuation as a people.

The Pacific Coalition of West Papua members and friends discussing the way forward for the struggles for self-determination by the people of West Papua.

Minister Paul of the Republic of Marshall Islands said his country sees the issue of West Papua from a humanitarian perspective and humanitarian issues are at the forefront of the Marshall Islands Government.

The FLNKS representative, Rodrigue Tiavouane said the FLNKS fully supports the PCWP initiative and the strategy by which it will be implemented.

He said the FLNKS went through the same process with its self-determination bid- starting with the Melanesian Spearhead Group then on to the Pacific Islands Forum and finally the UN Committee 24 (Special Committee on Decolonisation).

Prime Minister Pohiva of Tonga said it is a moral obligation to address the human rights abuses in West Papua and deteriorating conditions and call for self-determination and independence.

He said at the 70th United Nations General Assembly last year he spoke of how the objectives of good governance and accountability are all impossible without full support for human rights of people in areas of conflict throughout the world including the Pacific Islands.

Ambassador Moses of Nauru said it is important that the issue of West Papua be taken to UN C24 and to be successful it is important for the Pacific to have strong leadership in pursuing it in a strategic manner.

She said what works some people does not always work for others.

PIANGO Tonga Member, Drew Havea said he was encouraged by the leadership on the issue of West Papua displayed by Prime Minister Sogavare.

He said PIANGO acknowledges the pain of the people of West Papua as the pain of the Pacific and would like to urge Pacific leaders to come to an agreement to stop the violence in West Papua and find a peaceful and dignified pathway to self-determination.

The meeting concluded with the expression of commitment by all PCWP members to their mission objective. (*)